This Paedobaptist Agrees with Mark
My friend Mark Dever says that baptizing infants is sin. Mike Bird and others are offended and Mark has replied. I've received a few emails about this. Frankly, I don't understand why folk are in high dudgeon.
Mark is a Baptist and as such thinks that we paedobaptists (who haven't been re-baptized) are unbaptized and it is sinful to remain unbaptized. Now, as a principled paedobaptist (baby-baptizer) who started his Christian life as a evangelical Baptist, who came to his views through biblical theology and exegesis, and who is comfortable with the history of the doctrine, I'm quite convinced that the Baptists are wrong, but Mark is right that it's sinful to remain unbaptized. Further, if he's right about baptism, he's right to say that we paedobaptists are sinning. I'm not offended. God bless Mark Dever for taking the holy sacraments seriously and for taking the doctrine of the church seriously. Hang in there buddy. What I'm about to say is not by way of retaliation. What I'm about to say here is what I've said to Mark privately. As a principled paedobaptist, it is not too much to say that believing parents who refuse to baptize covenant children are sinning. This is, after all, what the Reformed Confessions teach. The Heidelberg Catechism (1563), Q. 74 says:
74. Are infants also to be baptized?
Yes, for since they belong to the covenant and people of God as well as their parents, and since redemption from sin through the blood of Christ, and the Holy Spirit who works faith, are promised to them no less than to their parents, they are also by Baptism, as the sign of the Covenant, to be ingrafted into the Christian Church, and distinguished from the children of unbelievers, as was done in the Old Testament by Circumcision, in place of which in the New Testament Baptism is instituted.
Art. 34 of the Belgic Confession (1561), one of the confessions of the Dutch Reformed Churches says in part,
For that reason we detest the error of the Anabaptists who are not content with a single baptism once received and also condemn the baptism of the children of believers. We believe our children ought to be baptized and sealed with the sign of the covenant, as little children were circumcised in Israel on the basis of the same promises made to our children. And truly, Christ has shed his blood no less for washing the little children of believers than he did for adults. Therefore they ought to receive the sign and sacrament of what Christ has done for them, just as the Lord commanded in the law that by offering a lamb for them the sacrament of the suffering and death of Christ would be granted them shortly after their birth. This was the sacrament of Jesus Christ. Furthermore, baptism does for our children what circumcision did for the Jewish people. That is why Paul calls baptism the "circumcision of Christ."
The Westminster Confession of Faith, 28.4-5 says:
4. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.
5. Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it; or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.
A recent essay in the Westminster Theological Journal has argued quite reasonably and plausibly that the best interpretation of art. 5 is as a reference to Baptists. Recall that the Particular Baptists had published a confession of faith in 1644, three years before the WCF was finished. The divines were well aware of the growing Particular and General (to speak anachronistically) Baptist movements. Evidently it is not fashionable to say that it is sinful not to baptize one's children is sin. I understand that, but consider this scenario: A gentile comes to Abraham,
Convert: I've heard about your God Yahweh Elohim and have come to believe that he is, in fact, the true God and that the gods of the nations, the gods I formerly served, are nothing but idols. I want to identify with this people, I believe Yahweh and I want to be admitted to his covenant people."
Abraham: "Yahweh bless you my son. He has given you the grace of trusting in Yahweh and in his promised Savior (John 8:56). I too was a Gentile before God gave me faith in the coming Messiah and the sign and seal of his promise, the sign and seal of the covenant of grace (Rom 4:11). When Yahweh revealed himself to me he instituted the sign of circumcision to be applied to believers and to their children. As a mercy, I will sharpen the flint rock as well as possible."
Convert: "I can understand how I should take the sign, but why should my children also receive the sign since they are but infants and we cannot be sure they believe?"
Abraham: "God will have it so. He promised, 'I will be a God to you and to your children.' This is the promise of the eternal covenant of grace. They are to be admitted to the administration of the covenant of grace. We trust that by Yahweh' sovereign grace they too will trust in Yahweh and that the sign will become to them a seal, a promise that just as their schmuck has been removed so too their sins have been removed by grace alone, through faith alone, in the Messiah alone. It is a great sin to refuse to initiate your children into the covenant of grace. Indeed, Yahweh says, 'Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.'"
According to Reformed theology, the same promise that God made to Abraham is still in force. Indeed, in the New Covenant all the types and shadows having been fulfilled by Christ, the sign of baptism is to be applied to believers and all their children, males and females alike (just as both sexes come to the Lord's Table). Peter says so in Acts 2:39.
The point here, however, isn't to make the case for infant baptism but to say that a certain view of the sacraments is of the essence of the Reformed understanding of redemptive history and revelation, it is essential to our (covenant) theology, piety, and practice. We may be wrong but it's what we believe the Word to teach. We have a moral duty, as Mark does, to confess the Word and teach it.
I'm not offended. Mark is a good friend, a very good scholar, and a churchly gentleman. God bless him and may he embrace the faith of Abraham with us. I stand ready to baptize his children any time he wishes.
Dr. Clark,
"Indeed, in the New Covenant all the types and shadows having been fulfilled by Christ, the sign of baptism is to be applied to believers and all their children, males and females alike (just as both sexes come to the Lord's Table). Peter says so in Acts 2:39."
Um, that is not what Acts 2:39 says. It says:
For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself." (Act 2:39)
What is for your children (and those who are far off)? The promise. What promise is he referring to? Look back one whole verse:
And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Act 2:38)
Does he say be baptized along with your kids? No, he says "REPENT" and be baptized, which is hard for an infant to do, dontcha think? Based on that logic of Acts 2:39 defending paedobaptism, we should baptize people who live far away from Jerusalem because the promise is for those who are far off because they get the same promise. So I think your position is not paedobaptist as much as it is distobaptist, baptism of believers, and infants and people who live far away, two of the three being baptized regardless of repenting as required in the preceding verse.
Posted by: Arthur SIdo | Mar 20, 2009 6:04:20 PM
Wow, Arthur. You may have a point - of which I'm not convinced - but your explanation is so convoluted that I don't even understand what you are saying. You ought not to lecture Dr. Clark on logic when your comment lacks any semblance of logic at all.
Posted by: Mark T | Mar 21, 2009 12:25:38 AM
Dr. Clark – thank you for this BLOG. When you write that,
“a certain view of the sacraments is of the essence of the Reformed understanding of redemptive history and revelation, it is essential to our (covenant) theology, piety, and practice. We may be wrong but it's what we believe the Word to teach. We have a moral duty, as Mark does, to confess the Word and teach it”
it is a clear call for even Reformed Baptist to make their stand clear and unambiguous.
dc
Posted by: David Charles | Mar 21, 2009 8:17:03 AM
Dear Dr. Clark,
I appreciate that you and Dr. Dever are men of conviction.
Apparently, Dr. Dever's conviction leads him to withhold communion from anyone not baptized properly.
I am wondering what level of importance you men attach to your views of baptism. Would you likewise bar Pastor Dever from the Table if he visited your church seeing that he as a teacher in the church willingly refuses to obey the Scriptures and is walking in unrepentant sin because he will not baptize the children of believers?
Let me rephrase this question: Do you believe that the right administration of this sacrament pertains to the esse or bene esse of the church? In other words, is your conviction in line with the teaching of the Belgic Confession Article XXIX, which identifies, as one of the marks of a true church, "the pure administration of the sacraments as instituted by Christ"?
If so, does that conviction lead you to view Dr. Dever's church as a false church since he fails to administer the sacrament of baptism rightly as instituted by Christ? Moreover, since Pastor Dever is well-trained and well-aware of the arguments in favor of paedobaptism yet rejects them, do you consider him qualified for the Christian ministry? Better, since he has perverted one of the sacraments of the church and joined what might be viewed as a faction or sect, do you believe it your duty to call him to repent publicly of his sin and, if not, to mark him as a false and divisive teacher and to call on true churches of Christ to separate from him?
Just trying to better understand how series you men take your convictions on this particular point of doctrine and church polity.
Posted by: Robert Gonzales | Mar 21, 2009 8:20:55 AM
Hi Robert,
The Church Order of my federation does not speak to this issue, but my congregation (Oceanside URC) follows the Church Order of the Synod of Dort on this point by restricting communion to those who "profess the Reformed religion." We apply this language by restricting communion to those who are members of NAPARC (North American Association of Presbyterian and Reformed Churches) congregations (www.naparc.org) or like bodies.
Whether Mark is qualified for Christian ministry is not a judgment for me, as a private person, to make.
The question of communion, for us, is about true and false churches (Belgic Confession, Art. 29). The issue is whether any congregation that lacks one of the marks of a true church is a "true church"?
There's a little more about this today at the HB
Posted by: R. Scott Clark | Mar 21, 2009 4:09:46 PM
ps: http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2009/03/21/do-presbyterians-confess-that-refusing-to-baptize-infants-is-sin/
Posted by: R. Scott Clark | Mar 21, 2009 4:10:10 PM
It seems odd to me that for someone who came to his conclusions by "biblical theology and exegesis" his best defence for a key practice is to quote, not Scripture, but confessions and creeds.
I am sure better arguments are out there for, but surely this plays into the position that some aspects of Reformation theology are read into the Scriptures rather than found in a plain reading of the text.
Just a thought.
Posted by: Martin Wickens | Mar 21, 2009 5:18:16 PM
Can i just echo the comments made by Martin? I really do not care what the various confessions or creeds of Reformed theology historically state. They were written by men - very godly men, but just men all the same. I DO care what the Word of God teaches and, for the same reasons outlined by Arthur and others in earlier comments, I just cannot find any support for the peadeobaptist position in the NT. However, that said, I also understand that there are many sincere followers of Jesus who do honestly hold that position. Generally, the practice at the churches I have been involved with is that visitors holding a paedobaptist position are welcome to share in the Lord's Supper, but anyone wishing to join longterm and serve God as part of the local church would have to accept the believer's baptism position to do so. That to me seems a loving acceptance of each other while still remaining true to the teaching of scripture.
Posted by: Goblin | Mar 23, 2009 4:08:50 AM
Hi Goblin and Martin,
Do you see the blue text underlined in the main article above? (that's how it appears on my screen). Those indicates links to other articles. One of the links is a reasonably extensive biblical defense of paedobaptism. My assignment in this piece was not to defend paedobaptism but to explain why I, as a PB, am not offended.
Check out this link:
http://www.wscal.edu/clark/baptism.php
Posted by: R. Scott Clark | Mar 24, 2009 1:47:50 AM
Martin and Goblin's comments are illustrative of why some of us former baptist were only too happy to run off (or, perhaps BE run off...) the reservation.
Posted by: Mathew Beatty | Mar 24, 2009 8:46:45 PM
Sorry if this is the wrong place to post this comment but one thing that has struck me regarding this whole debate is that if failure to be baptised as a believer or failure to baptise your infants are sins then surely, if we are consistent, we should take the steps outlined in 2 Thess 3. Here Paul commands the Thessalonians to avoid people who refuse his command to work. They are still to be regarded as brothers but they are to be effectrively dis-fellowshiped. Surely failure to obey the command to be baptised means that we are in a similar (perhaps even more serious) position than these Thessalonians. It would seem to follow that our fellow brothers should not associate with us. That is what I find so confusing about this recent debate of the 'sinfulness' of a particular stance on baptism. If mode/timing of baptism is such an important and clear issue such that sin comes into a failure to do it rightly, why are people not acting consistently in avoiding those who disobey Scripture? Or could it be that given our fallen nature and so our inability to be 100% clear on this issue (while still needing to be fully persuaded ourselves), we must be gracious to other brothers and sisters in their convictions and not label their practices as sinful?
Posted by: Peter Orr | Mar 25, 2009 5:19:16 AM
First of all I agree with Dr. Clark's statement that he is not offended. Also Dr. Dever was very instrumental in my coming to a reformed understanding of the bible, and for that I say thanks. For those that have taken this a step further than what was intended I would only ask, if the children of the believer(Abraham), were in, when the promises were given,and they(the children) were included in the temporal,fleshly,conditional, out working of the old covenant, for blessing or curse. For example see Achan, Joshua 7:24-25 Joshua and his children were stoned and burned with fire because of Achan's sin. Now are we to believe that in the new covenant made with Israel,(the fulfillment of the promises made to Abraham)that somehow the childern are not included, please show me this in scripture.
Posted by: Mike Duckett | Mar 30, 2009 10:06:21 PM
sorry Achan and his children not Joshua.
Posted by: Mike Duckett | Mar 30, 2009 10:12:11 PM
Mike,
The covenant theology underlying the Reformed view of baptism does not understand Abraham to have been, strictly speaking, an "old testament" character. He was a typological character in the history of redemption, but not an "old covenant" character. He lived in the period of, as Hebrews puts it, "types and shadows."
We distinguish Abraham from the old covenant because Paul does so consistently. He does so in 2 Cor 3 when he applies the language "old covenant" not to Abraham but to Moses. Of course the pattern for this was established in Jeremiah, which describes the new covenant as not like that made with the fathers when they were led out of Egypt. In other words, Jeremiah connects the old covenant to Moses and not to Abraham. Paul also makes this identification in Galatians 3 and 4, where he explicitly distinguishes between Abraham and Moses. In Gal 3 Paul argues that the Mosaic covenant did not change the Abrahamic covenant which is fundamental to God's administration of saving grace in the world. The Mosaic covenant was a codicil added to the Abrahamic covenant 430 years later and it has expired with the coming of Christ. The Abrahamic covenant, however, has not expired. We know this from Romans 3-4 where Paul makes Abraham the pattern for new covenant faith! Finally, the book of Hebrews, chapters 7-10, explicitly describe the Mosaic covenant as the "old covenant." It is, in the language of 2 Cor, fading, it is obsolete. These things are not said about Abraham. Thus, the Reformed covenant theology sees the promises and commands given to Abraham as still in force. The typological elements have been fulfilled in Christ but the promises and commands (to initiate children of believers into the visible covenant community) remain. Just because Abraham is a typological character in the history of redemption does not mean that he was an "old covenant" character.
Posted by: R. Scott Clark | May 18, 2009 11:51:14 AM
I am studying the issue now, slowly. No criticism intended, but I think Dr. Clark's defense in his post is a fine one. Because he didn't choose to present a Scriptural defense in this particular post does not mean that his position is not defensible. It only means that he chose not to present that aspect. He presented the Reformed Confession aspect likely because Mark Dever is also Reformed. This issue is not the slam-dunk that Baptists think (and I am a Baptist, at least currently). Take up and read, folks, and be ready to do the hard work necessary. Paul said there are some things hard to be understood, and this is one of them. Soli Deo Gloria!
Posted by: Scott Oakland | Jul 18, 2009 10:58:14 AM